Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00980
Original file (ND00-00980.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-AO2, USN
Docket No. ND00-00980

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 000828, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable. The applicant requested a personal appearance hearing before the board in the Washington National Capital Region. The applicant did not list any representative on the DD Form 293. Subsequent to the application, he requested a documentary (record) review.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010402. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.


PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. Showing how the Navy Drub lab was altering data of urine.

2. Dr. P_ of the Drug Laboratory testimony under oath how the problem exist and the people are still working there.

3. The question he asks me when I was taking the polygraph test and his license.

4. If I was taking Tylenol/Codeine it should have shown up on the urine test under opium or codeine base. Neither was shown up only cocaine.

5. Ask for a court-martial did not receive one. Because if I would have had a court martial. I would have been acquitted of all charges.

6. I performed two polygraph examinations, also Dr P_ gave in full detail about how the Drug lab was tampering with specifics and the people are still working there until this day. Also I have the original conversation of the Admin Bd.

 Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Letter to congressman dated July 20, 2000

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: USN                        851202 - 891031  HON
                  USN                       891101 - 931031  HON
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     850226 - 851201  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 931101               Date of Discharge: 950412

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 01 05 12
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 27                          Years Contracted: 4

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 33

 Highest Rate: AO2

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: 4.00 (2)    Behavior: 3.80 (2)                OTA: 4 .00

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM, BER (2), SSDR (2), Letter of Commendation (3)

Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS)/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 3630620.

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

941020:  NAVDRUGLAB, Norfolk, VA reports applicant's urine sample received 941007 tested positive for cocaine.
941219:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse as evidenced by a positive result for cocaine of a sample submitted for unit sweep on 6 October 1994.
941221:          Applicant advised of his rights and having consulted with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to appear before an Administrative Discharge Board.

 941222:  Notice of Decision from Physical Evaluation Board: 10% disability.

 950207:  An Administrative Discharge Board, based upon a preponderance of the evidence and by unanimous vote, found that the applicant had committed misconduct due to drug abuse, that the misconduct warranted separation, and recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions).

950302:  Commanding officer recommended discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use). Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Although I concur with the recommendations of the board, this case has some extenuating circumstances. First and foremost, AO2(AW) (applicant's) service to date has been nothing but outstanding. Second, AO2(AW) (applicant) was awaiting a medical discharge for a knee injury when the urinalysis reported his sample positive for cocaine. Because the misconduct occurred after the injury, and AO2(AW) (applicant's) service has been so exemplary, I strongly recommend AO2(AW) (applicant) retain the medical disability to which he was entitled prior to the administrative separation board. Therefore, I urge the review board to retain AO2(AW) (applicant) and allow him to be discharged under a medical disability.

950328:  BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge general (under honorable conditions) by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 950412 general (under honorable conditions) for misconduct due to drug abuse (use) (A). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (B). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).

 In the applicant’s issues 1 through 4, the Board found that nothing in the records, nor did the applicant provide anything to indicate or to show that there exists an error of fact, law, procedure, or discretion associated with his discharge at the time of its issuance, and that his rights were prejudiced thereby. The applicant was afforded all of his proper rights and due process. Furthermore, there has been no change in policy by the Navy, or higher authority, made expressly retroactive to the type of discharge received by the applicant. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

In response to the applicant’s issue 5, it is the Commanding Officer’s prerogative to send a service member to court martial or award an NJP. It is not the “right” of a service member to choose one or the other. In the applicant’s case, the CO elected to separate the member and not send him to a court martial or award CO’s NJP. The Board found the applicant received his proper rights and all due process and therefore, the Board finds that the discharge was proper. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

The applicant states in issue 6 that “ I performed two polygraph examinations, also Dr P_ gave in full detail about how the Drug lab was tampering with specifics and the people are still working there until this day. Also I have the original conversation of the Admin Bd.” The Board did not find results of a polygraph exam in the service record, nor did the applicant present any evidence to prove that the Drug test was inaccurate. No relief will be granted based on this issue.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time, or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (D). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group), certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) and proof of his not using drugs (detoxification certificate, AA meeting attendance or letter documenting participation in the program) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

 Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A . Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 9/94, effective
22 Jul 94 until 02 Oct 96, Article 3630620, SEPARATION OF ENLISTED MEMBERS BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT DUE TO DRUG ABUSE
B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls14.jag.af.mil ".

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00355

    Original file (ND04-00355.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-00355 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20031218. Chief H_ was not designated in writing by the Commanding Officer to be the command UPC until 06 Nov. 2002, which is over two months after this test was taken. (PAGE 9) Exhibit B 7.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-01072

    Original file (ND00-01072.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    My discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 67 months of outstanding performance of service, as my enlisted service record indicate. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant states in issue 1 that his “discharge is inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident.” The Board found that the applicant...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01107

    Original file (ND02-01107.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Accordingly, the President, Naval Discharge Review Board, directed a document review that was conducted on 030602 before a five-member board. Attempted to observe Applicant one more time to allow him to comply with the CO's order after still refusing to provide a sample, the CO ordered that Applicant be escorted to medical for a blood sample to be taken. In the Applicant’s case, the Board found that the urine sample that determined the Applicant used cocaine and marijuana was collected as...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500136

    Original file (ND0500136.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable and the reason for the discharge be changed to “miscellaneous/General Reasons”. The summary of service clearly documents that misconduct due to drug abuse was the reason the Applicant was discharged. The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits not the Navy Discharge Review Board.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500088

    Original file (ND0500088.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    5420 CORB:003 14 Feb 06 From: Secretarial Review AuthorityTo: Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Via: President, Naval Discharge Review BoardSubj: REQUEST FOR REVIEW: CASE OF H------O. MC____-, (B---------) , EX AT2, USNR DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT ex-AT2, USNR Docket No. The Navy’s Drug Lab urinalysis test has indicated that her urine sample has indeed tested positive for cocaine, yet a civilian hair DNA test has...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00007

    Original file (ND04-00007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. As the representative, we ask that consideration be given to equitable relief, as this is a matter that involves a determination whether a discharge should be changed under the equity standards, to include any issue upon which the applicant submits to the Board’s discretionary authority, under SECNAVIST 5420.174C. Navy Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), effective 15...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-01007

    Original file (ND04-01007.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ND04-01007 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20040607. On February 19th 2003 IC1 P_ and I were talking about my case and he stated the restricted personnel -was doing-working for the Master o farms in BM1 L_'s office the day the urinalysis specimens were sitting in the office.I was told my time to appeal my case was nine months and I have asked for the papers but I have not received anything in the mail. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00009

    Original file (ND99-00009.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    891008: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to drug abuse (use).Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): ICFN (applicant's) second drug abuse incident in May 1986 was extremely disappointing to the command and was believed at the time to be his first drug incident. ICFN (applicant) had again tested positive for cocaine. 861022: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Report: Cocaine abuse, 1 to 3 times per month, Nov83 to Sep86, ashore...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2004_Navy | ND04-00801

    Original file (ND04-00801.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEWDECISIONAL DOCUMENTex-AA, USN Docket No. The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-01152

    Original file (ND02-01152.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) None Active: USN None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 860927 Date of Discharge: 881024 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 01 11 21 Inactive: 00 01 06 880807: Commanding Officer recommended...